Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:Do any of you own securities that consist of company issued stock or their growth is based on the performance of publicly traded companies? If so, then you're part of the problem since you are profiting from companies that are cutting costs by eliminating jobs or relocating them to more cost friendly locals in order to increase their profit and drive up their stock price.

:pop:

:thumb: IMO, non-employee shareholders taking more and more at the expense of employees isn't just part of the problem, it is the problem and the primary driving force.

Not only have most large companies grown the stock markets by converting their employee retirement programs to 401ks and IRAs they have increased the number of individuals that are dependent on the stock market. So the pressure for companies to meet forecasts has increased more than ever. This is why you'll continue to see increased cutting of expenses by moving low skilled easily replaceable jobs to areas that offer lower labor costs.

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:Not only have most large companies grown the stock markets by converting their employee retirement programs to 401ks and IRAs they have increased the number of individuals that are dependent on the stock market.

Just increasing that 'ownership class' since everyone deserves a piece of the american dream.

Willie Kool wrote:Nope. Like I said, you're right. Corporations should have absolutely no concern for their current employees or the communities that helped them grow.

You know what? That's a perfectly reasonable point of view, and a valid response to the questions I posed... so I'm not sure why it needed to be accompanied by so much snark.

I would tend to agree that a measure of loyalty isn't an unreasonable expectation... relating it to hockey, we all hope to see our favorites take that "hometown discount". But once negotiations reach a certain point, both parties realize it's time to move on. There's quote-unquote greed playing a role on both sides of the equation, and at some point the expectation that one side "OWES" something to the other starts to tip toward the lighter side of the scale.

I still submit however that it is not a zero-sum game in this case - Ohio's loss is Texas' gain. The company isn't obligated to provide those jobs in Ohio, and the losses in Ohio are indeed offset by the gains in Texas. Yeah, the company is the goat in Ohio, but the hero in Texas...

Guinness wrote:I would tend to agree that a measure of loyalty isn't an unreasonable expectation...

There's quote-unquote greed playing a role on both sides of the equation, and at some point the expectation that one side "OWES" something to the other starts to tip toward the lighter side of the scale.

I certainly can't argue that the union wasn't acting with some amount of greed. To be honest, I really don't know enough of the details of the contract proposals or negotiations to effectively argue this any further.

Guinness wrote:I still submit however that it is not a zero-sum game in this case - Ohio's loss is Texas' gain. The company isn't obligated to provide those jobs in Ohio, and the losses in Ohio are indeed offset by the gains in Texas. Yeah, the company is the goat in Ohio, but the hero in Texas...

The OP was about Ohio. I brought up and am talking about certain divisions of the Erie, Pa. plant.

Erie's (and Ohio's) loss is indeed Texas' gain, but maybe more so GE's shareholders' gain. Hard working people too often lose their jobs or are forced to give concessions in order to raise the stock price by a few bucks, or to pay out a few more cents per share in dividends every quarter.

You're assuming a zero sum game. If a plant in Ohio has 1000 jobs but isn't competitive with a plant in Europe. (Think airplane manufacturing), because of the cost of doing business in Ohio. Then those 1000 jobs are at risk of going the way of 10's of thousands of steelworkers jobs.

If those jobs can be moved to to Texas and be competitive, then those 1000 jobs will be saved.

You're assuming a zero sum game. If a plant in Ohio has 1000 jobs but isn't competitive with a plant in Europe. (Think airplane manufacturing), because of the cost of doing business in Ohio. Then those 1000 jobs are at risk of going the way of 10's of thousands of steelworkers jobs.

If those jobs can be moved to to Texas and be competitive, then those 1000 jobs will be saved.

That's about workers jobs, not shareholders.

If I'm not mistaken, GE's only real competition in this particular industry is Caterpillar.

Frankly the whole thing looks to me much more like collusion to break the unions in both companies than GE or Cat somehow 'saving jobs'.

You do understand that as far as the people and local economy of NW Pa are concerned, those jobs ARE gone. Texas or Europe or just gone, it really doesn't matter.

You're assuming a zero sum game. If a plant in Ohio has 1000 jobs but isn't competitive with a plant in Europe. (Think airplane manufacturing), because of the cost of doing business in Ohio. Then those 1000 jobs are at risk of going the way of 10's of thousands of steelworkers jobs.

If those jobs can be moved to to Texas and be competitive, then those 1000 jobs will be saved.

That's about workers jobs, not shareholders.

If I'm not mistaken, GE's only real competition in this particular industry is Caterpillar.

Frankly the whole thing looks to me much more like collusion to break the unions in both companies than GE or Cat somehow 'saving jobs'.

You do understand that as far as the people and local economy of NW Pa are concerned, those jobs ARE gone. Texas or Europe or just gone, it really doesn't matter.

It's an unfortunate circumstance but one often has to relocate to make a living, I know, I've done it over a dozen times in my life.

You're assuming a zero sum game. If a plant in Ohio has 1000 jobs but isn't competitive with a plant in Europe. (Think airplane manufacturing), because of the cost of doing business in Ohio. Then those 1000 jobs are at risk of going the way of 10's of thousands of steelworkers jobs.

If those jobs can be moved to to Texas and be competitive, then those 1000 jobs will be saved.

That's about workers jobs, not shareholders.

If I'm not mistaken, GE's only real competition in this particular industry is Caterpillar.

Frankly the whole thing looks to me much more like collusion to break the unions in both companies than GE or Cat somehow 'saving jobs'.

You do understand that as far as the people and local economy of NW Pa are concerned, those jobs ARE gone. Texas or Europe or just gone, it really doesn't matter.

That's true about competition, but GE was always able to compete based on price, and not necessarily quality of product. There was also always the suspicion until the late 1980s that the only reason companies purchased locomotives from GE was to keep them as a viable competitor.

Now that Caterpillar has moved its production from the high cost, unionized plant in London, Ontario to Munice, Indiana and Mexico, GE needs to do the same to compete on cost. That Erie plant is an antique compared to what they have in Texas, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the place closed completely within 5 years.

Wages were one of the few costs that could be brought down in comparison to other costs. On top of that, there are probably multiple craft designations within the union that are either obsolete or duplicate with new technology. GM/Delphi ran into similar issues when competing with foreign companies (in one GM plant there were 30 classifications, compared to 4 in a Nissan plant that made competing vehicles). Ultimately, the Ft. Worth plant with its lower labor and other costs is necessary for GE to compete with Caterpillar for the long term.